Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Science or Beliefe?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DokhtarIrooni View Post
    here's one: BIG BANG or God-created-world-in-7-days???
    Did humans just appear on earth? ---> Adam & Eva or Evolution beginning with a unicellular organism
    Why does it matter???? For what purpose do you need to know???
    I would be true, for there are those who trust me;
    I would be pure, for there are those who care;
    I would be strong, for there is much to suffer;
    I would be brave, for there is much to dare.
    I would be friend of all—the foe—the friendless;
    I would be giving and forget the gift;
    I would be humble, for I know my weakness;
    I would look up and laugh—and love—and lift.
    Howard Walter
    http://www.farsinet.com/poetry/images/poemvatn.gif

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dokhtar Bandari View Post
      Why does it matter???? For what purpose do you need to know???
      chon man fuzulam mesle hame adama but i choose science. it makes more sense IMO
      ~ Bahar ~

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by zubin View Post
        thats an example of a conflict of the wording of a book with science, not God and science.

        many if not most would also say thats not even a conflict between religion and science because religion is stories and rules for us to learn from, and should not be taken literally.
        i dont know if thats true, but it IS taken literally
        ~ Bahar ~

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DokhtarIrooni View Post
          i dont know if thats true, but it IS taken literally
          yes its taken literally by many people, but the essence of religion is not the words its the lesson.

          there was this concept called the 'noble lie' by some famous philosophers that happened to be written right before Christianity.

          the noble lie principle is that, if society is in danger and a lie will fix it, then the lie is good and noble. the lie here is supposed to be that someone has identified God and so everyone should follow his rules. but the point is the following of the rules, not the 'lie'.

          anyways, my main point is that if you take religion at its core there might not be a conflict with science. like, if there is a moral to a religious story, it might not be unscientific at all.

          i think a good example is marriage and/or morals and rules based on outlining boundaries between the two genders. such rules can be based on science in that indeed (as the story goes), men are pigs lol, they will go after women jealously and recklessly if you do not set morals and rules. and perhaps women have traits of their own which, from a scientific perspective, might warrant morals and rules of their own.

          its possible that religion is based on science, but got some of the rules wrong.

          last but not least, there is no established conflict between God and science. To me, that question is a bit wierd in itself. God is hard to establish scientifically, yet the concept of God does not go against science in any way either. Its not like science disproves God.

          There is a scientist called Dworkin, very famous, who says he has disproved God with science. He is saying that in human evolution, human beings needed a being to praise to stick together (very much like the noble lie). So the concept of God is simply an adaptable invention.

          But that still does not disprove God. It simply outlines the way humans came up with the concept (which may still be a true or false concept from his argument, and is not disproven).
          Last edited by zubin; 04-09-2009, 08:12 AM.
          Take him and cut him out in little stars,
          and he will make the face of heaven so fine,
          that all the world will be in love with night,
          and pay no worship to the garish sun

          - Shakespeare

          "In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." - JS Mill

          Comment


          • #20
            Zubin jaan did you mean to say Richard Dawkins? Because if you are talking about the Ron Dowrkin, he is a legal philosopher (i can see how you would mix it up) and not an evolution expert.

            Anyhoooo, both institutions have answers best suited to their questions. Another word none knows the truth, because truth is relevant. Neither one can prove or disprove God with certainty. Because God, just like anything else is a thought in the mind of Man. Just as Man is a thought in the mind of Man. So they both come up with answers which protects their integrity in answering any question.

            They both have been wrong in many occasions and have owned up to it. Simply they apologize and say they were wrong...so it is my sincere belief that "rah na enast o na oon"...

            Why would you want to give an entity to have absolute power over what you think and believe is beyond my understanding. Freedom is accepting everything the way you understand it and because someone else worse of all an institution tells you to.
            I would be true, for there are those who trust me;
            I would be pure, for there are those who care;
            I would be strong, for there is much to suffer;
            I would be brave, for there is much to dare.
            I would be friend of all—the foe—the friendless;
            I would be giving and forget the gift;
            I would be humble, for I know my weakness;
            I would look up and laugh—and love—and lift.
            Howard Walter
            http://www.farsinet.com/poetry/images/poemvatn.gif

            Comment


            • #21
              yes Dawkins not Dworkin thank you
              Take him and cut him out in little stars,
              and he will make the face of heaven so fine,
              that all the world will be in love with night,
              and pay no worship to the garish sun

              - Shakespeare

              "In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." - JS Mill

              Comment

              Working...
              X